Delete a kept agent conversation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial context the annotations cannot carry: turns are irreversibly gone, the id can no longer be continued, desktop side effects persist, all account threads are visible to this key including other users', and the 1000-thread LRU retention consequence of not deleting. This is exactly the beyond-annotations behavioral detail expected of a destructive tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but front-loaded: the irreversible effect lands in the first clause, the sibling contrast immediately after. A few clauses are rhetorically wordy ('Nothing else changes — no run is stopped...'), but each sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, side-effect scope, permissions/visibility caveats, retention implications, and the confirm requirement. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description exceeds it by adding meaning about which thread_id to supply (one this conversation started or one the user asked to remove) and by reinforcing that confirm must be true. It still defers format details (pattern, source of the id) to the schema, so it is not a full 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb and resource plus a scope qualifier: 'Permanently delete a kept conversation'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by noting 'no run is stopped (cancel_agent_run stops a background run)', so an agent can separate this from run-cancellation without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States both when to use it ('removing a prompt that held private text, or making room') and when not to ('no run is stopped', 'delete only a thread this conversation started or one the user asked to remove'). It names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, leaving little to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.